Technical evidence controlled furnace classification, with pusher type findings sustained absent contrary material.

Technical classification of re-heating furnaces turned on expert evidence and authoritative literature. On reconsideration, the authority found the furnaces had characteristics of pusher type furnaces and that the claim of batch type furnaces was not supported by technical material. In the absence of contrary evidence, those factual findings were not displaced on appeal, and the classification as pusher type furnaces was maintained in favour of the Revenue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the re-heating furnaces were pusher type furnaces or batch type furnaces.

Analysis: The matter had earlier been remanded for re-examination with the aid of technical experts and technical literature. On reconsideration, the adjudicating authority relied upon expert reports and authoritative technical publications, held that the furnaces had characteristics similar to pusher type furnaces, and found that the claim of batch type furnaces was not established by supporting technical material. No material was shown to dislodge these factual findings.

Conclusion: The furnaces were held to be pusher type furnaces and not batch type furnaces, in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a technical classification issue has been decided on expert evidence and authoritative literature, such concurrent factual findings will not be disturbed in appeal in the absence of contrary material.

---